Doesn't phase me, bro. I look at what happened, not what should have happened.

What DID happen was the Warriors won 59% starting Bogut, 56% starting Ezeli. Bottom line. You can keep dancing it up and keep throwing numbers at me, dude, I'm just telling you. The only thing that phases me is the bottom line.

Doesn't phase me, bro. I look at what happened, not what should have happened.

What DID happen was the Warriors won 59% starting Bogut, 56% starting Ezeli. Bottom line. You can keep dancing it up and keep throwing numbers at me, dude, I'm just telling you. The only thing that phases me is the bottom line.

If you extrapolate their numbers to more games there is a fair bit of certainty we would have won more games with Bogut's 40 games of production than Festus' 78. It's not dancing around it or a hypothetical. It's a fact. Bogut did contribute to more wins.

Winshare literally measures how much you contributed to a win and divides it among everyone on the team. You take both their stats from last season and even if they stats don't change we'd win more games with Bogut.

Doesn't phase me, bro. I look at what happened, not what should have happened.

What DID happen was the Warriors won 59% starting Bogut, 56% starting Ezeli. Bottom line. You can keep dancing it up and keep throwing numbers at me, dude, I'm just telling you. The only thing that phases me is the bottom line.

If you extrapolate their numbers to more games there is a fair bit of certainty we would have won more games with Bogut's 40 games of production than Festus' 78. It's not dancing around it or a hypothetical. It's a fact. Bogut did contribute to more wins.

Winshare literally measures how much you contributed to a win and divides it among everyone on the team. You take both their stats from last season and even if they stats don't change we'd win more games with Bogut.

We're totally splitting hairs at this point.

We agree that Bogut is better, we agree that the loss of Ezeli hurts... we're literally arguing over whether Ezeli filled in for Bogut well or not last year. This is totally not worth a back-and-forth. I think we both agree that Bogut is better, so the rest of it is just fluff.

Doesn't phase me, bro. I look at what happened, not what should have happened.

What DID happen was the Warriors won 59% starting Bogut, 56% starting Ezeli. Bottom line. You can keep dancing it up and keep throwing numbers at me, dude, I'm just telling you. The only thing that phases me is the bottom line.

If you extrapolate their numbers to more games there is a fair bit of certainty we would have won more games with Bogut's 40 games of production than Festus' 78. It's not dancing around it or a hypothetical. It's a fact. Bogut did contribute to more wins.

Winshare literally measures how much you contributed to a win and divides it among everyone on the team. You take both their stats from last season and even if they stats don't change we'd win more games with Bogut.

We're totally splitting hairs at this point.

We agree that Bogut is better, we agree that the loss of Ezeli hurts... we're literally arguing over whether Ezeli filled in for Bogut well or not last year. This is totally not worth a back-and-forth. I think we both agree that Bogut is better, so the rest of it is just fluff.

We need to argue over fluff in the off season. It wouldn't be the off season unless we did.

Beans, regardless of opinions will play, that was my entire notion, regardless of how people feel. With Bogut always hurt, now Festus injured, Landry in the balance, Lee with his injury, lack of money to go get a big, who do you have left ? No one other than the over-paid 7'0.

warriorsstepup wrote:Beans, regardless of opinions will play, that was my entire notion, regardless of how people feel. With Bogut always hurt, now Festus injured, Landry in the balance, Lee with his injury, lack of money to go get a big, who do you have left ? No one other than the over-paid 7'0.

I dunno, bro. Jackson got pretty creative in his methods for keeping AB glued to the bench. The way I see it, Biedrins only gets in the game if...

1, Bogut gets hurt. Cause without Ezeli, Bogut will play big minutes and Lee will probably slide over so the Dubs can play small ball for tiny spurts when the big man needs a rest.

2, The Warriors acquire no replacement for Landry. If Landry bolts, the Dubs are in dire need of another big to spell Lee and Bogut. With Ezeli out, this is no longer a luxury. You NEED a 3rd big. And if one can't be had on the cheap, they may go ahead and throw Biedrins another role. Why? Because Bogut, Lee, and Biedrins cost you over $30 million alone. Ezeli is a keeper whom they may eventually wanna insert into the starter's role. And that means that you have half of your payroll already invested in big men. The likelihood of the Warriors spending another $7 million to bring in a guy like Dalembert or Birdman is extremely slim. The Warriors want a short-term guy who can be dismissed as soon as Ezeli returns. They won't overpay in the unlikely event that Bogut and Lee are both healthy and in-shape; cause, in that scenario, a 3rd big is only getting 10 minutes a game anyway. They'd rather put Green at the 4 and Lee at the 5 in that case.

So, yeah. Biedrins MIGHT play next year, cause it seems the perfect sh*t storm is brewing up to throw his tosser ass back into the mix for one last cringe-worthy hurrah, but a man can always hope, I suppose. A healthy Bogut + a 100% Lee + an internal answer for Landry (ie, Green or some D-League surprise) = no Biedrins.